Assess whether related-party sales should be backed out of valuation (16c99a)

SITUATION Integration-risk PMO is responsible for related-party sales should be in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction, using carve-out stranded-cost model as the only working extract. A founder who will not sign a non-compete is what reset the timeline for this M&A Due Diligence Earnings and Revenue Quality file.

DECISION Integration-risk PMO in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction must choose Proceed / Reprice / Walk / Hold using carve-out stranded-cost model after a founder who will not sign a non-compete.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Carve-out stranded-cost model reads as Proceed once a founder who will not sign a non-compete is lined up to the same M&A Due Diligence population. 2. Carve-out stranded-cost model is closer to Reprice after a founder who will not sign a non-compete; Proceed would over-claim this Earnings and Revenue Quality extract. 3. Walk is still live in carve-out stranded-cost model for integration-risk PMO in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction. 4. Carve-out stranded-cost model is missing the fact integration-risk PMO needs after a founder who will not sign a non-compete; stop this M&A Due Diligence close.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Separate a one-off add-back from a recurring earnings issue in carve-out stranded-cost model. 2. Map reps, earnout mechanics, and integration risk a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction would inherit. 3. Tie quality-of-earnings, working-capital, and contingent items in carve-out stranded-cost model to related-party sales should be. 4. For this M&A Due Diligence Earnings and Revenue Quality file, read carve-out stranded-cost model against a founder who will not sign a non-compete and write the one fact that would move related-party sales should be for integration-risk PMO.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Proceed / Reprice / Walk / Hold on this M&A Due Diligence / Earnings and Revenue Quality packet (carve-out stranded-cost model after a founder who will not sign a non-compete). If carve-out stranded-cost model cannot force a M&A Due Diligence label under Earnings and Revenue Quality, stop. Do not invent missing evidence a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction does not have.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line M&A Due Diligence option on related-party sales should be, then the evidence in carve-out stranded-cost model, then the action for integration-risk PMO - Hypothesis scorecard against carve-out stranded-cost model: supported / rejected / untestable - Regulatory or exam hook Earnings and Revenue Quality would cite - Earnings and Revenue Quality finding in carve-out stranded-cost model that a second reviewer can re-perform